If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Two of the top 7 Big Men in the League

I haven't seen in discussed here yet, so I just wanted to get some opinions. In his latest piece Bradford Doolittle projects the WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player) for every big man in the league. As most would expect, Dwight Howard and Kevin Love are #1 and #2. Who is #3? Well, that would be Ryan Anderson. Andrew Bynum is #4- a full game behind Anderson, then Blake Griffin, Josh Smith, and Anthony Davis at #7.

Doolittle is one of the best writers in the sport and we were lucky enough to have him on the podcast. He stated time and time again that Anderson is underrated and his career arc is most similar to Dirk. Now, I know every stat, projection, etc is flawed but all of those other guys sound like the best bigs in the game, so is Anderson's projection just a fluke? To me, he is one of the top 6-8 bigs in the game and almost every advanced metric says the same thing. Yet, it just does not perceived by most as elite.

He was the best big in the league last year (and third overall) in point differential when on the floor vs. off. He is third in projected WARP, had the best PER of any free agent (including Deron Williams) and yet nobody really sees him as elite.

No insider for me ... I do agree Anderson is VERY underrated based purely on his efficiency.
So he has us with 2 of the top 7 big men in his opinion? Wowzers!
Question... Where was Roy Hibbert on that list?

WARP is pretty silly. Fun for NBA/Math geeks. Should not be taken too seriously.

So, my question then would be: What should be taken seriously? Sportscenter To 10 Highlights? Old stats like PPG?

If we are to talk about the best bigs in the league, what should we use? Ryan Anderson does not get discussed by the talking heads because he is not in a big market and doesn't make highlight reel plays, but EVERY SINGLE advanced metric has him as an elite player.

If people are going to say that this should not be taken seriously, then what should? And where does Anderson rank according to that?

Anderson is probably the best 3 point shooting big in the league. Add to that his above average rebounding for his position and he's very valuable. Obviously though when he's shooting cold, there's not much else that he brings to the table.

Anyway, it's nice to finally say the Hornets have a very formidable front court for a change. Jason Smith & Robin Lopez would be an OK starting front court, and those two are essentially the backups (yeah, I know Lopez is starting, but I expect Anderson to get more playing time overall - we need his scoring off the bench).

You wouldn't by any chance be dissing this stat because he ranks higher than Blake Griffin in it now would you?

Griffin ranked fifth. That's not exactly something to be ashamed about. Fifth best big in the league according to this dumb stat. I just think this particular stat is rather silly. Have you looked at the equations?

Griffin ranked fifth. That's not exactly something to be ashamed about. Fifth best big in the league according to this dumb stat. I just think this particular stat is rather silly. Have you looked at the equations?

Primary stats and most importantly eye test should be enough to evaluate a player. RyNo is good but not great player. No Dwight Howard for sure, lol.

What specific items do you look for when doing the eye test to determine whether a big man is "good but not great"? How do you measure them? How do you perform the eye test objectively? How do you ensure that if 10 of us use the eye test on the same games, we all come out with fairly consistent ratings? How should a GM use the eye test to find underrated players?

Obviously watching the games is critical to understanding the value of players. But we can't just discard advanced stats because they show us something that doesn't totally agree with conventional thought. The point of these stats is to unearth trends that aren't obvious, like Ryan Anderson being an undervalued big in this league.

I would rather Blake Griffin than Anderson and would take that deal straight up without even thinking about it. I know thats not popular here but I would. 21 ppg , 11 rebounds on 55% shooting isn't anything to sniff about. I get Griffin leaves a lot to be desired as far as jump shooting and defense, but Anderson is certainly not flawless as well.

I would rather Blake Griffin than Anderson and would take that deal straight up without even thinking about it. I know thats not popular here but I would. 21 ppg , 11 rebounds on 55% shooting isn't anything to sniff about. I get Griffin leaves a lot to be desired as far as jump shooting and defense, but Anderson is certainly not flawless as well.

We know that and most would agree with you. Ryan just ranked better at this particular stat though. So what? That doesn't mean one wouldn't want to trade him for Blake Griffin. Blake is definitely a better flopper than Ryan too though.

We know that and most would agree with you. Ryan just ranked better at this particular stat though. So what? That doesn't mean one wouldn't want to trade him for Blake Griffin. Blake is definitely a better flopper than Ryan too though.

Well, I think the "So what" is that eye test that most agree on over stats.

I like Ryan. Don't get me wrong. But his placement so high just shows how off this stat can be.

Not necessarily. Some players do things better than others. It's just this one stat. I don't think the majority of people asked would say that Ryan Anderson is 'better' than Blake Griffin as an overall player.

What specific items do you look for when doing the eye test to determine whether a big man is "good but not great"? How do you measure them? How do you perform the eye test objectively? How do you ensure that if 10 of us use the eye test on the same games, we all come out with fairly consistent ratings? How should a GM use the eye test to find underrated players?

Obviously watching the games is critical to understanding the value of players. But we can't just discard advanced stats because they show us something that doesn't totally agree with conventional thought. The point of these stats is to unearth trends that aren't obvious, like Ryan Anderson being an undervalued big in this league.

Cpompletely agree about not discarding advanced stats. Just as you agree'd you can't discard the eye test, as hard as it is to put you finger on what it is.